The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26413 of 2025 Sourav Kumar Meher .… Petitioner Represented by Mr. Akansh Acharya, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -Versus- .… Opp. Parties Represented by
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A. Sethy, Additional Standing Counsel Mrs. J.R. Tripathy, Special Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 23.09.2025 Order No. 01. . 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer. “It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased of admit this writ petition call for the record issue notice to the opposite Parties and after hearing the parties issue appropriate writs by setting aside the impugned order of rejection of Appeal Case no.02 of 2025 dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure-16) passed by the Director, Special Projects-cum-Appellate Authority (Opposite Party No.2) and further quash the order of disengagement of the petitioner vide office order No.671 dated 21.02.2025 of the Collector-cum- CEO, Zilla Parishad, Nuapada (Opposite Party No.3) under Annexure-13 respectively of the writ petition; And pass appropriate order(s)/direction(s) by directing the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parishad, Nuapada (Opposite Party No.3) to reengage the petitioner in the post of GRS, Rokal Gram Panchayat and allow him to discharge his duty as he was previously; Page 1 of 5 And further pass any order order(s)/ direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper; And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as Gram Rojgar Sevak (GRS) with effect from 04.06.2020 being initially posted in Bargaon Gram Panchayat under Khariar Block. While working as such, he was transferred to other Gram Panchayats on allegation that he was not performing his duties properly and had remained unauthorizedly absent. He was asked to show cause on several occasions, to which he submitted his reply, inter alia, stating that his mother was old and ailing and there being no other person available in the family, he had to attend to her. 4. The Collector-cum-C.E.O., Zilla Parishad, Nuapada vide order dated 21.02.2025, while noting all the facts was not inclined to accept the explanation submitted by the petitioner and accordingly disengaged him from his contractual engagement. The petitioner initially approached this Court against such order of disengagement in W.P.(C) No.7972 of 2024, which was disposed of by order dated 26.03.2025 granting him liberty to prefer appeal before the appellate authority. The petitioner thereafter preferred appeal, which came to be dismissed by order dated 09.05.2025, which is impugned in the present writ application. 5. Heard Mr. A. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Sethy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Mrs. J.R. Tripathy, learned Special counsel appearing for the State in MGNREGS matters. 6. Mr. Acharya would submit that neither the Collector nor the Appellate Authority have taken note of the explanations submitted by the petitioner before taking the extreme step of disengaging him from service. He further submits that the petitioner had a valid Page 2 of 5 reason to remain absent from his duties as he was transferred to a place more than forty-five kilometers from his native place. Since his mother was ill and there was no other member in his family, he had no other option but to attend to her at times, which may have led to some disruption in his duties. These aspects, according to Mr. Acharya have not been considered in the proper perspective by the Collector as well as the Appellate Authority. 7. Mr. A. Sethy, learned ASC would submit that the petitioner is guilty of a series of misconducts which have been proved by the reports submitted by the concerned authorities. 8. Mrs. Tripathy, while making similar submissions as Mr. Sethy further submits that proper opportunity of hearing was accorded to the petitioner at every stage but he could not offer any satisfactory reply in respect of the allegations of misconduct. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court would like to point out at the outset that this being a certiorari proceeding, the order of the quasi-judicial authority can be interfered with not as a matter of course but only under limited circumstances. Interference in such matters can be made only in case of perversity of findings or violation of the principles of natural justice or any other blatant violation of case. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not convinced that the above requirement is satisfied. Reading of the impugned order of disengagement reveals that the Collector has passed a detailed order referring to the telephonic messages sent to the petitioner regarding his poor performance. In fact, as it appears, the petitioner was transferred twice taking note of his poor performance but he failed to improve. He also remained unauthorizedly absent from duties causing disruption in Government work. Most importantly, the petitioner being called Page 3 of 5 upon to explain on several occasions failed to submit satisfactory explanation regarding his poor performance. The Collector was therefore, convinced that the petitioner was guilty of gross negligence in Government duty and that he had failed to improve himself despite being given ample opportunities. Nothing has been pointed out by the petitioner as to how the finding of the Collector is wrong or against the principles of natural justice. 11. Perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority reveals that the CDO-cum-EO Zilla Parisad, Nuapada had submitted a detailed report on the conduct of the petitioner (appellant). The gist of the report, running into 12 paragraphs has been quoted in the impugned order, which this Court has perused. It is seen that the petitioner was irregular in his duties and despite several opportunities, did not improve his performance. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner was granted opportunity to improve his performance and was also granted opportunity to explain the show cause notices issued against him from time to time, the appellate authority found no reason disengagement. 12. This Court finds that firstly, proper opportunity of hearing interfere with the order of to was granted to the petitioner at all stages. His explanation was found to be unsatisfactory. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that a different view could have been taken by the authorities. In fact, this Court also takes note of the fact that the petitioner was granted several opportunities to improve his conduct, which he did avail of. As already stated, this being a certiorari proceeding the writ Court would be slow to interfere unless the order impugned is shown to be palpably wrong, contrary to law or is based on perverse findings etc. Page 4 of 5 13. From what has been narrated hereinbefore, such is not the case at hand for which this Court is not inclined to admit the writ application. 14. In the result, the writ application is dismissed. Judge (Sashikanta Mishra) Puspanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 24-Sep-2025 17:06:18 Page 5 of 5